Absence of Malice

While watching the movie “Absence of Malice” we experienced multiple examples of unethical decisions, and an example of libel within the media. The title of the movie refers to the legal definition of libel defamation. Libel is defined as a false accusation of an individual that has been published and damages the reputation of the accused.

During the movie a reporter named Megan is looking into the disappearance of Joey Diaz who is a longshoreman union official. Without any hard evidence to print, Megan searches out the detective who is looking into the case as well. The detective makes short work of her, and leaves her in his office claiming he has a meeting to attend. After the detective has left Megan makes an unethical decision to take the portfolio off of the detectives desk labeled “Joey Diaz”. This I believe is one of the more definitive unethical moves we have seen in our two movies. This is unethical because Maggie is stealing information that she wants for her own personal glory. However, one could make the case that she is just doing her job to the fullest possible. We find out later that the detective left the portfolio on his desk on purpose, knowing Megan Foster would take it. Was this an unethical decision as well? The detective planned to do this because he was trying to squeeze any kind of information he could out of Michael Gallagher. I believe this is an unethical move by the detective and could be seen as assistance in libel. However, we learned in class that the only person that can be subject to libel is the one who published the information.

Later, Megan prints a story about in the newspaper about how the person on the top of the list is a wholesale alcohol importer, Michael Gallagher. What we also know is that Megan has an outside source that is feeding her information about the case. Gallagher sees the article and wants to meet with Megan in person to discuss it. Megan goes for lunch with Mr. Gallagher wearing a wire, and being followed for her protection. Gallagher knows that this is happening and calls her out on the situation. Gallagher then explains that the story is incorrect, and asks who Megan’s source is. Refusing to tell him, Gallagher decides its time for her to leave.

Is this considered libel defamation? Is Michael Gallagher considered a public figure? This article did hurt Gallagher’s reputation because the longshoreman no longer wanted to do business with him, and his workers began to ask questions.

This is similar to the case we had to read about the bombing of the Boston Marathon and the picture of the “Bag Men”. Two men were photographed and labeled as top culprits in the bombing of the Boston Marathon. The two men immediately headed to the police station pleading their innocence. “This was inevitable: The two people plastered on the front of the New York Post days after the Boston Marathon bombing under the headline “Bag Men” are suing the paper for libel and invasion of privacy. (Washington Post) Gallagher was falsely accused and so were these men at the Boston Marathon. The paper in the movie was forced to write a story explaining the incidents.

I am not sure how I would have handled this situation differently. Obviously it could have started with Megan not printing the story about Michael Gallagher. On the other hand, would the detectives get as much information as they did without the story? My plan would have been to have someone look further in Michael Gallagher and his whereabouts on the night of the disappearance. As for Megan Foster, I believe she could have been a bit wiser and before printing the story she could have looked further into Mr. Gallagher, and tried a little harder to get a hold of him in the first place.

 

Source

 

Wemple, Erik. “New York Post Sued for Libel over ‘Bag Men’ Story.” The Washington Post. N.p., 6 June 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/06/new-york-post-sued-for-libel-over-bag-men-story

 

All The Presidents Men

Throughout the movie All The President’s Men the ethical values of The Washington Post writers Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are questioned. Are these writers just doing their job ass efficiently as they can? Or are they crossing some ethical borders in order to gain valuable information? In our lectures the definition of ethics is “Analysis, evaluation and promotion of correct conduct and/ or good character, according to the best available standards.” (4.1 Video) To me ethics can be a very subjective topic depending on person to person. During the movie Woodward has a contact that is on the board of the presidential election. This contact is leaking information to Woodward about the burglary and money used to help Nixon win the election. Is this unethical for Woodward to do? I do not believe so because he is just doing his job to the fullest. The unethical side may be that the source of the information is leaking more information than he should be which, is a job well done by Woodward. Also, during the film Bernstein and Woodward approach a woman’s house to gather more information about the internal issues at the Whitehouse. This may not be unethical because they are once again doing their jobs, but when they use fake names to try and draw out evidence that is an action that is unethical under the category we learned in class about omission.

My concern is for the credibility of both Woodward and Bernstein. After they published that story word must have got out about how persistent they were when it came to the two of them badgering people into giving them material to write. In an article we had to read it talks about how Jayson Blair plagiarized, fabricated stories, and he lied saying he was in a place he never was. This crushed the credibility of the New York Times for a small amount of time and “For a while, it even made The Times a laughingstock in late-night comedy routines.” (Margaret Sullivan) After the story about the Watergate scandal the credibility of The Washington Post is obviously stellar, considering all the repercussions afterwards. The question I am asking is if you are a civilian who has important information, would you be telling it to Woodward and Bernstein considering the ethical lines that they crossed? I know if Jayson Blair ever asked me about a topic I would be hesitant to tell him.

To be honest I don’t know how this whole situation should have been handled. Obviously Bernstein and Woodward did some pretty skeptical things that people would consider “wrong”, but they were doing their jobs. I think obviously you could start with how Nixon never should have been doing these actions that he needed to cover up in the first place and avoided these ethical concerns.

I believe this had an immense impact on journalism. Journalists understood what was being done by Bernstein and Woodward and are not going to be as tentative to come close to crossing these ethical lines. Of course people who are not journalists will see this as unethical just as they did in the movie. The item that I think that it is important to keep remembering is that ethics is biased depending on the person. Every person has their own opinion on what is and isn’t ethical. Now that journalists are beginning to understand that from the examples of this movie I believe that more are willing to do things that some people may see as unethical. An example that makes sense to me is that you always hear about MTV capturing these ridiculous photos of celebrities while they are trying to enjoy their private lives. Sure, the celebrities are probably annoyed and think it’s an invasion of their space. However, the journalists writing the story and capturing these photos are once again just trying to do their jobs.

Sources

Lecture 4.1 Introduction into Journalism Ethics, slide 2

Lecture 4.2.2 Journalism Ethical Framework – What’s Reasonable and Sources, slide 5

Sullivan, Margaret. “Repairing the Credibility Crack.” The New York Times 4 May 2013: 1. The New York Times. Web.